Doctor’s Report Of Minor Wife’s Delivery Alone Didn’t Show POCSO Offence, Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes FIR Against Husband And In-Laws

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 59 of 2024, registered under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR followed a report that a minor girl had been admitted to hospital for delivery and was living with petitioner No. 1, Jitender Kumar.

The petitioners asserted that the victim had married Jitender Kumar in 2024 with the families’ knowledge and that the parties had compromised.

The victim and Jitender Kumar appeared before the Court and confirmed their marriage, cohabitation, the birth of their child, and the victim’s wish not to pursue the case.

The victim had also testified as PW-1 and stated her date of birth as 23 June 2005, although her Section 164 CrPC statement recorded her age as 17.

Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice; under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the nature and gravity of the offence and its societal impact must be considered when deciding whether to quash on the basis of a compromise.

The Court considered Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, treating Section 19 as requiring reporting of an apprehended or known POCSO offence and Section 21 as penalising failure to report; it held that the mere fact that a minor had attended hospital to deliver a child did not, by itself, establish such an offence or trigger the Act.

The Court also observed that, if the prosecution evidence disclosed no incriminating evidence, the trial court could acquit under Section 232 CrPC, corresponding in the judgment to Section 255 BNSS.

It noted that prosecution under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, might be available in the circumstances described.

The Court acknowledged that the FIR alleged serious offences, but considered that the victim had married Jitender Kumar, lived with him, delivered their child, and testified in a manner that, in the Court’s view, demolished the prosecution’s basis; the parties had also voluntarily compromised.

It further reasoned that the doctor had reported the victim’s age and hospital admission, not a disclosed or reported sexual offence, and therefore considered that the circumstances did not, without more, attract Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act.

Given the victim’s testimony and the Court’s assessment that there was no realistic prospect of conviction, it found continuation of the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose.

It quashed FIR No. 59 of 2024 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

The petition and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.